Netherlandic language research

[p. 53]

Chapter Eight
Modern Netherlandic (since 1880)

1. The position of the standard language

In the introduction we explained how in the 15th century chances were favourable for the Brabant dialect to develop into the supra-provincial standard language, but how in the 16th century, political events changed the situation and gave Holland the leadership among the Seven Provinces. Brabantic influence is to be found in Hollandic texts as early as the later Middle Ages, and in modern times the fabric of written Netherlandic, though based on the Hollandic dialect, still shows traces of a Brabantic weft. This is one of the reasons for the gap between spoken and written Netherlandic, a gap which, however, has been diminishing rapidly during the last few decades. The differences between Spreektaal en schrijftaal in het Nederlandsch are discussed in an article published in 1891, but still deserving of study, by J.W. Muller, T. en L. I, 196 ff, reprinted in Muller's Verspreide Opstellen (Haarlem, 1938), 1 ff.

Brabantic influence has also been assumed in some important facets of sound development, especially in the diphthongization of Old Germanic î and û into ij [εi] and ui. We shall discuss this subject more at length in Chapter XII.

Moreover, as in all civilized countries, the influence in the Netherlands of written and literary language on the spoken language can be shown up to the present day. This is dealt with in some publications such as E. Kruisinga's Taal en Maatschappij (Utrecht, 1909); C.B. van Haeringen's Spelling pronunciations in het Nederlands, N.Tg. XXXI, 97 ff and 152 ff, reprinted in his collection of scattered papers Neerlandica, 37 ff; G.G. Kloeke, Gezag en norm bij het gebruik van verzorgd Nederlands (Amsterdam, 1951).

Where lexicology, morphology and syntax are concerned, a rather high degree of uniformity in the usage of educated people has been reached in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. In the case of spoken sounds regional differences do exist, but even here they are steadily diminishing. For the position of Standard spoken Netherlandic in the Northern Netherlands see: C.G.N. de Vooys, Het gezag van een

[p. 54]

Algemeen Beschaafd, N.Tg. VIII, 1 ff and 65 ff, reprinted Verz. Taalk. Opst. I, 99 ff; C.B. van Haeringen, Eenheid en nuance in beschaafd-nederlandse uitspraak, N.Tg. XVIII, 65 ff, reprinted Neerlandica, 9 ff. The social and individual differences are stressed rather strongly by Kloeke, in Gezag en norm, passim.Kloeke also dealt with north-eastern peculiarities in Provincialismen, in the periodical Driemaandelijkse Bladen III, 109 ff.

As we said in Chapter I, Received Netherlandic has not yet, in Flemish Belgium, gained a position equal to that of the other language of the country, French, due to the latter's age-long superiority. Although French and Netherlandic are officially equal - Netherlandic being the language of education and government in the Flemish regions - French is spoken, even in the Flemish parts, by a high proportion of the upper classes; and always and anywhere in Belgium, in a company consisting of Walloons and Flemings, French is the language of conversation. Many Flemings only speak their local dialect or a strongly dialect-coloured Netherlandic, and usually a person speaking correct Received Netherlandic in Flemish Belgium is taken for a ‘Hollander’. So, a plea for Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands in België, such as was advanced by A. van Loey (Brussels, 1945), certainly has its uses. The social and practical difficulties caused by the monolingual education in the Flemish half of Belgium were described objectively by this author in Le sort du flamand en Belgique, in the Swiss periodical Hesperia, number 6/7, 1951.

In Flemish Belgium the written language, too, shows many deviations from Northern usage in lexicology and even in syntax. In this respect we must distinguish sharply between intentional dialectisms and generally accepted Southern Netherlandic traits, a difference that was not always duly observed by J.A. Daman in his Het Algemeen Beschaafd in Vlaanderen (Ghent, 1946): cf. J.L. Pauwels' essay with the same title in N.Tg. XLII, 21 ff. A danger Netherlandic tends to be exposed to particularly in Belgium is that of literal trans lations from French. A good many Gallicismen in het Zuidnederlandsch have been pointed out by W. de Vreese (Ghent, 1899). The Nederlandsche Taalgids, by Const. H. Peeters (Antwerp, 1930, 2nd impression 1934), is an attack on ‘belgicisms’ in general. A concise edition of Peeters' book was prepared by Paul van Gestel, ABN-Gids (Antwerp, 1949), ‘ABN’ being the abbreviation of ‘Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands’, i.e. ‘Common Civilized Netherlandic’. The

[p. 55]

periodical Nu Nog, published by the enterprising ‘Vereniging voor Beschaafde Omgangstaal (V.B.O.)’, appears every two months in one printed sheet and gives regular information about pure and correct usage.

2. Grammatical handbooks and monographs

There is, and it is not true of the Netherlands alone, a remarkable uncertainty as to the methods to be used in the composition of a synchronic grammar of modern language. We are relatively well equipped with handbooks of historical grammar, and also with grammars of Middle Netherlandic, at least as far as phonology and morphology are concerned, but in the case of the grammatical description of Modern Netherlandic we cannot say we have found our bearings.

Historical linguists used, as a rule, to regard grammar as being in a state of constant movement and change, and the situation of the present was looked upon and described as resulting from the past. In so doing, scholars ran the risk of projecting an earlier grammatical stage into the present, while on the other hand they tended to undervalue the static and normative side of grammar. The new, so-called structural trend in linguistics, aiming at considering the present exclusively from the viewpoint of the present, has not as yet led to a really synchronic grammar of Modern Netherlandic being written. So far we have only seen some interesting attempts to treat separate parts of grammar. There is still a good deal of uncertainty and divergence of opinion about the basic principles, and even about such a fundamental question as what belongs to grammar and what does not. The dividing line between morphology and syntax remains a source of difficulties for grammatical praxis. Serious reflections on grammatical principles were given by M.J. Langeveld, Taal en Denken (Groningen, 1934).

We possess a venerable piece of work from an older period in De Nederlandsche Taal by C.H. den Hertog (2 vols, 2nd edition by H.J. den Hertog, Amsterdam, 1903-05), a book that still deservedly enjoys great authority. Larger in scope, and intended as a grammar for University students, was den Hertog's unfinished Nederlandsche Spraakkunst, of which 3 volumes appeared (2nd edition by H.J. den Hertog, Amsterdam, 1903). One of the objections raised by the younger generation against den Hertog, was that the author used the regulated written language for his working material,

[p. 56]

and did not do justice to the spoken language, which, especially in the Northern Netherlands, has its own characteristics. However much we may agree with this objection, we have to admit that den Hertog, in his clear, profound and richly documented expositions, was an observer and analyser of the first order. In all that has appeared since den Hertog, numerous points of grammar, especially of syntax, are passed over in silence even though they had been dealt with by den Hertog.

De Nederlandsche Taal by N. van Wijk appeared first in 1906, and to the later editions the name of W. van Schothorst was added (6th edition, Zwolle, 1931). The book was meant as a grammar for secondary schools, but it deserves mention here because, in the absence of a grammar designed for the use in Universities, it has served other purposes as well and because, owing to its original approach, it marks a new stage in the description of Modern Netherlandic. The book can be characterized most simply as a Netherlandic grammar inspired by Paul's Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte.

The Handboek der Nederlandsche Taal by J. van Ginneken was planned as a large scale work, but was never completed: only two parts appeared (Nimeguen, 1910-11), Part I was reprinted almost unchanged (Bois-le-Duc, 1928). We do not know whether the book was going to contain a grammar in the strict sense, the existing volumes deal with dialects and the usage of several social groups, and the whole is illustrated by texts and word-lists.

The Moderne Nederlandsche Grammatica by G.S. Overdiep (Zwolle, 1928) was, like van Wijk's book, intended for secondary schools, but turned out to be too ‘difficult’ for that purpose. The recast Stilistische Grammatica van het moderne Nederlandsch (Zwolle, 1937, reprint with a few alterations by G.A. van Es, 1949) presents itself as a grammar for University students. Its combination of stylistics and grammar - though not unimpeachable as regards method - makes it a very remarkable book, of new and attractive design. A serious drawback, however, is its preponderance of syntax and stylistics over the form-element. Furthermore, we meet the reverse side of the author's very personal and lively way of presenting things in his weakness for enlarging on certain points that have his interest, while others receive relatively scant attention. A clear and interesting exposition and defence of Overdiep's principles and their practical application in grammatical research has been given by van Es in Ts.

[p. 57]

LXX, 207 ff: Principes en toepassing van de stilistische grammatica.

The authoritative Nederlandse Spraakkunst by C.G.N de Vooys, in collaboration with M. Schönfeld (4th revised edition by Schönfeld, Groningen-Djakarta, 1957), is based on a series of lectures on historical grammar, and is consequently arranged historically: grammatical facts are traced back to Middle Netherlandic. The book is very clear in exposition and systematic in structure, but the purely synchronic approach is deliberately rejected. One is inclined to judge de Vooys' syntax, in which he applies a synchronical standard, the best part of the book, as there its historical character is less evident. Rather peculiar and contestable as regards method is de Vooys' insertion of a section on semantics and semantic changes into his grammar.

A remarkable attempt at writing a grammar on strictly synchronical principles is the Structurele Syntaxis by A.W. de Groot (The Hague, 1949) which, in spite of its general linguistic tendencies, may be looked upon as a Netherlandic syntax. This original and exciting book, containing many debatable points, but always provoking, demonstrates clearly that we are still seeking our bearings in grammar.

Het Nederlands van nu by the Anglicist E. Kruisinga (Amsterdam, 1938) was not planned as a systematic grammar, but contains original and accurate observations, designed to provide laymen with some commonsense ideas about their mother tongue. In the new edition by H. Godthelp (1951) the book has been enlarged and has somewhat changed in character. Kruisinga's A Grammar of Modern Dutch (London, 1924) was written for Englishmen desiring a practical knowledge of Netherlandic.

B. van den Berg's Beknopte Nederlandse Spraakkunst (2nd edition, The Hague, 1957), though in the first place written for secondary schools, deserves mention here as an application of the author's grammatical views, which he had already expounded in a number of short articles, most of them to be found in the N.Tg. Some of these articles will be referred to in this chapter, under 3 e.

P.C. Paardekooper, who is of the opinion that grammatical synthesis can only result from a scrupulous observation and an exact formulation of details, has dealt with some aspects of grammar in a series of short articles in the N.Tg. In Syntaxis, Spraakkunst en Taalkunde (Bois-le-Duc, 1956), the first 13 chapters of which are identical with his doctoral thesis Syntactische Verkenningen (1955), he has set forth, and applied, his grammatical principles, in his own rather abstract

[p. 58]

and theoretical manner which does not contribute to the readability of the book. This work, which was looked upon by the author as a preparatory study for the ‘ABN-’-grammar, has been continued in ABN-Spraakkunst. Voorstudies. Tweede deel (Bois-le-Duc, 1958).

H.F.A. van der Lubbe's Woordvolgorde in het Nederlands (Assen, 1958) is an important contribution to modern syntax. The author's method, like de Groot's and Paardekooper's, is strictly synchronic, though he clearly dissociates himself from the views of the other two scholars.

3. Aspects of Grammar

a. Sounds.

Handbooks of phonetics.

For quite a long time, the need was felt of an adequate phonetical description of Modern Netherlandic. P. Roorda, in his book De klankleer en haar practische toepassing (6th edition, Groningen-The Hague, 1927), gave general considerations of phonetics and a phonetical appreciation of sound changes, which take up a large portion of the book; his treatment of the phonetic peculiarities of Netherlandic itself is rather concise.

The large Leerboek der Phonetiek by H. Zwaardemaker and L.P.H. Eijkman (Haarlem, 1928) supplied the long-felt want, although Zwaardemaker's share, the instrumental aspect, is not particularly attractive to the average linguist, and rather detracts from its merits as a handbook of linguistic studies. The more concise Phonetiek van het Nederlands (Haarlem, 1937), written by Eijkman alone, is purely ‘linguistic’, accurate and very detailed in its description of Netherlandic sounds. The new edition by M. Knoop (Haarlem, 1955) is practically unchanged, but contains many serious misprints.

A short but matterful and highly individual introduction to both phonetics and phonemics is B. van den Berg's Foniek van het Nederlands (The Hague, 1958).

The Praktische Uitspraakleer van de Nederlandse taal by E. Blancquaert (5th edition, Antwerp, 1955), an important contribution to general phonetics, which gave evidence of an acute and unbiased observation of Netherlandic pronunciation, was in the first place designed to help Southern Netherlandic readers to get rid of their dialectal phonetic habits.

[p. 59]

Special Phonetic Subjects; Monographs.

In the present survey, the instrumental aspect of phonetics will not be given much attention. L.P.H. Eijkman has worked in this field: several publications from his hand are mentioned in the bibliography at the end of his Phonetiek van het Nederlands. Louise Kaiser, who was one of the editors of the Archives Néerlandaises de Phonétique Expérimentale, published a Biological and Statistical Research concerning the Speech of 216 Dutch students in vols XV and XIX of that periodical. Her Phonotypologische beschrijving van de spraak der Wieringermeerbevolking (2 vols, Amsterdam, 1940-49) was published separately. The Wieringermeer was the first of the great polders reclaimed from the former Zuyder Zee, and its population was recruited from different parts of the country. Miss Kaiser's Phonetiek (The Hague, 1950) is a general physiological introduction to speech formation, with some short discussions of Modern Netherlandic sounds.

The characteristic Netherlandic assimilation of voiced and voiceless consonants was studied by L.P.H. Eijkman, see N.Tg. XXVII, 315 ff, and the contents of his article provided the basis for his Phonetiek. Forms of assimilation have been recorded with the aid of instruments under the supervision of Miss Louise Kaiser; the results were published in O.Tt. VIII, 97 ff and Album Edgard Blancquaert (Tongres, 1958), 31 ff.

A much disputed point of Netherlandic phonetics is the organic difference between v and w, both being - at least in Northern Netherlandic - labio-dental consonants, but phonetically clearly distinct. A short review by C.B. van Haeringen of the various opinions on this subject appears in N.Tg. XXXVIII, 238 ff.

Another interesting point is the decline of the difference between two short o-sounds, as in dof as distinct from pot, a difference of phonematic value, though functionally not very important, preserved by the older generations, and by the younger in so far as they come from the eastern parts of the country. Miss Branco van Dantzig, teacher of elocution, reviewed the state of affairs in De korte o-klanken van het Nederlandsch (Groningen, 1940), pleading for a preservation of this difference in cultivated speech.

Some aspects of the history of sounds that have been dealt with in the last few decades will be mentioned in Chapter XIII.

[p. 60]

Phonemics.

A.W. de Groot gave a basic introduction to Netherlandic phonemics in his article De wetten der phonologie en hun betekenis voor de studie van het Nederlands, N.Tg. XXV, 225 ff, with a supplement, ibid. 298 ff. J. van Ginneken applied the phonematic treatment of the sound system to Netherlandic, in two articles, De phonologie van het algemeen Nederlandsch and Het phonologisch systeem van het algemeen Nederlandsch, for O.Tt. II, 321 ff and 353 ff. N. van Wijk's Phonologie (The Hague, 1939), subtitled ‘een hoofdstuk uit de structurele taalwetenschap’, is an essay on phonemics in general, containing many phonematic particulars of Netherlandic, from which language most of the examples were taken. We are promised a revision of this book, an outstanding one in its day, by A. Reichling, but it has not, so far, appeared. More recent phonematic publications have been worked into van den Berg's concise Foniek, mentioned above. [The latest work in this field is Fonologie van het Nederlands en het Fries by A. Cohen, C.L. Ebeling, P. Eringa, K. Fokkema and A.G.F. van Holk (The Hague, 1959).] Separate aspects of phonemics were treated by, among others, P.C. Paardekooper, De lettergreep en z'n begrenzing, N.Tg. XLII, 232 ff and 290 ff, De foneemwaarde van de svarabhaktivocaal, N.Tg. XLII, 74 ff. E. Kruisinga, though not an orthodox practiser of the ‘phonematic’ discipline, ought to be mentioned here for his articles Begin en Eind van Nederlandse Woorden, T. en Lev. II, 65 ff, dealing with syllable structure in Modern Netherlandic, and De Medeklinkers in de Bouw van onze Woorden, ibid. III, 92 ff. In these two essays he restricts himself to stems. In a third article, De Fonetiese tegenstelling tussen onze Stamwoorden en de Verbogen, Afgeleide en Samengestelde (for T. en L. IV, 161 ff), he discusses consonant groups at the junction of stems and flexion endings or derivative suffixes. Van Ginneken's article De Nederlandsche consonantgroepen, in O.Tt. VII, 33 ff, is restricted to what Kruisinga would call stems.

b. Stress. Intonation.

Since the useful book by J.H. Gaarenstroom, De klemtoon in de Nederlandse taal (Culemborg, 1897), no comprehensive monograph on word stress has appeared. The characteristic shift of stress in place names and street names was treated by J. Schrijnen, in N.Tg. X, 142 ff and XI, 19 ff, the latter article being a reply to objections made

[p. 61]

by Z. Stokvis and A.S. Bijl in N.Tg. X, 288 ff. Shifting of stress in polysyllabic words, especially in compounds and derivatives, is a related phenomenon in Netherlandic. This subject was discussed by K. Heeroma in Klemverschuiving bij samengestelde woorden, N.Tg. XLII, 65 ff and by B.H. Erné in Eenheidsklemtoon in samenstellingen, N.Tg. XLII, 140 ff. B. van den Berg, in De accentuatie van Nederlandse samenstellingen en afleidingen, N.Tg. XLVI, 254 ff, tries to evaluate word stress in compounds and derivatives as a means to expressing functional opposition.

L.J. Guittart's De Intonatie van het Nederlands, met inbegrip van een Vergelijking met de Engelse Intonatie (Utrecht, 1925), is a first attempt at a systematic treatment of sentence stress. Else and Willem Pée compared Northern and Southern Netherlandic sentence stress in their Beitrag zum Studium der niederländischen Intonation, printed in vols VII and VIII of Archives Néerlandaises de Phonétique Expérimentale.

A.W. de Groot discussed De Nederlandse zinsintonatie in het licht der structurele taalkunde in N.Tg. XXXVII (special number dedicated to de Vooys), 30 ff. In his Structurele Syntaxis, which we mentioned before, de Groot also pays much attention to sentence stress. Finally, there is a short monograph by G. Royen, entitled Intonatie en grammatische funktie in het Nederlands (Amsterdam, 1952).

c. Morphology.

We will mention here some publications, of which the greater part have a historical approach and may not be considered strictly synchronic, but as the accent in them is on Modern Netherlandic, we feel justified in discussing them in this chapter.

One point of morphology is the peculiar conflicts occurring especially in Northern Netherlandic written language with old case-endings and personal and possessive pronouns like hij, zij, haar and zijn. These conflicts arise from the fact that the written language preserves, or at any rate tries to preserve, the tradition of three genders and the corresponding use of personal and possessive pronouns, whereas spoken Northern Netherlandic actually has no more than two genders, namely the old neuter, and a ‘common’ gender, resulting from the merging of the former masculine and feminine genders. The pronominal difficulties become still more complicated by the fact that in references to names of persons the difference of sex is strictly observed in the

[p. 62]

use of personal and possessive pronouns. The layman mixing up the notions of gender and sex falls a victim to curious derailments in writing. These ‘pronominal problems’ have repeatedly been dealt with by G. Royen, in a number of entertaining articles, such as De kerfstok van de term ‘geslacht’, N.Tg. XXIII, 180 ff; Haar-kultuur, N.Tg. XXVII, 298 ff; Aanwas van hij c.s., N.Tg. XXVIII, 33 ff; Seksualizering en seksualitis, N.Tg. XXVIII, 206 ff, and others, all of them based on adroitly grouped cuttings from newspapers and weeklies. Books by the same author are Pronominale problemen in het Nederlands (Tilburg, 1935); Grammatiese kategorieën bij het naamwoord (Amsterdam, 1936); Bijgedachten en botsingen in taal (Boisle-Duc, 1939). C.B. van Haeringen investigated the relation between gender and sex in spoken Northern Netherlandic, in his Genus en Geslacht (Amsterdam, 1954), stressing the marked difference in matters of gender between this language on the one hand and Southern Netherlandic and the written language on the other. A wider field is covered by Royen's great work Buigingsverschijnselen in het Nederlands (4 vols, Amsterdam, 1947-48-52-54).

De meervoudsvorming in het Nederlands has been discussed by C.B. van Haeringen (Amsterdam, 1947, reprinted in the collected papers Neerlandica, 186 ff). The same author attempted a strictly synchronic treatment of De hoofdvormen van het nederlandse werkwoord, N.Tg. XLIII, 20 ff.

K. Heeroma wrote about numerals in N.Tg. XLI, 242 ff, to which D.C. Tinbergen, N.Tg. XLII, 65 ff made some corrections and additions.

d. Word formation.

The important and original study by W. de Vries, Iets over woordvorming, was published as a ‘treatise included in the programme of the municipal grammar-school of Groningen’ for the years 1920-21 and 1921-22, and for that reason it is very scarce and hard to come by. In it, de Vries discusses points of Standard Netherlandic, and also several phenomena of his mother tongue, the dialect of the province of Groningen. The thorough and critically written doctoral thesis of Jacoba H. van Lessen, Samengestelde naamwoorden in het Nederlandsch (Groningen, 1928) is based on historical principles, but also uses much material from Modern Netherlandic.

In addition to these monographs, many short articles on details of

[p. 63]

word formation have appeared, only a few of which can be mentioned here.

The type of verbal compounds, of the knarsetanden, knikkebollen kind, consisting of a verbal stem plus the name of a part of the body, is placed in a historical perspective by J. van Ginneken, O.Tt. VIII, 132 ff. On compounds originating from a desire for conciseness see G.S. Overdiep's article in O.Tt. I, 363 ff, reprinted Verzamelde Opstellen II, 241 ff. The same tendency in the formation of verbs is discussed by W. de Vries in Invloed van neiging tot beknoptheid op vorming en betekenis van verba, N.Tg. XIX, 82 ff. On compounds of the groothandel, sneltrein type, see W.H. Staverman, N.Tg. XXXIII, 29 ff.

For prefixes and suffixes we have in the first place the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, where these elements of word formation are generally treated under separate heads. Further, on -loos: D.C. Hesseling, N.Tg. II, 249 ff; on the unvoicing of consonants before the suffixes -lijk, -loos and -nis: G. Royen, T. en L. V, 49 ff and VI, 10 ff; on -schap: E.E.J. Messing, Neophilologus II, 185 ff, 272 ff; on the conditions for the use of -aar or -er: C.B. van Haeringen, N.Tg. XLIV, 260 ff. The lengthy discussion on the origin of the suffixes in diminutives will be reviewed in Chapter XIII. For the stylistic and affective value of the diminutives, and also for their form we possess a treatise by E. Kruisinga, Diminutieve en Affektieve Suffixen in de Germaanse Talen (Amsterdam, 1942), chiefly dealing with Netherlandic, but also with other Germanic languages, notably English. Other articles are those by William Z. Shetter, The Dutch diminutive, published in The Journal of English and Germanic Philology LVIII, 75 ff, in which lucid summary he stresses the semantic aspect; A. Cohen, who provides what he calls ‘een morfonologische proeve’ in Het Nederlands diminutiefsuffix, N.Tg. LI, 40 ff; and a short one by L.C. Michels on Woordwording van affixen, N.Tg. L, 79 ff.

e. Syntax. Stylistics.

When we enter the field of Netherlandic syntactical studies, the first name that springs to mind is that of G.S. Overdiep. His two articles De studie der Nederlandsche Syntaxis, N.Tg. XIX, 182 ff (Verz. Opst. II, 5 ff) and De stilistische methode in de Nederlandsche Taal- en Letterkunde (Groningen, 1929, Verz. Opst. II, 23 ff), both

[p. 64]

originally lectures, are in essence programmes for historical and synchronic syntactical research. His Over het Nederlandsche participium praesentis, Ts. XXXVI, 198 ff and XLIV, 119 ff (Verz. Opst. II, 126 ff) is based on the literary language of recent times. Over woordschikking in modern proza (Leyden, 1927) takes its examples from the impressionist author Jacobus van Looy (1855-1930) and from Augusta de Wit (1864-1939), whose style is of a rather classic simplicity. Shorter syntactic essays by Overdiep appeared mostly in Onze Taaltuin, and were reprinted in the 2nd volume of his Verzamelde Opstellen.

F. Jansonius brought out Over woord en zin in het proza van L. van Deyssel (Assen, 1942). L. van Deyssel, pseudonym of K.J.L. Alberdingk Thijm, was in some of his prose works an extreme impressionist. The stylistic research of impressionist literature continued to occupy Jansonius, who aired his views in De beeldende omschrijving, N.Tg. XLI, 193 ff; Jacques Perk als impressionist, N.Tg. XLII, 134 ff; Impressionistische taal- en stijlvormen, N.Tg. XLVI, 86ff; Impressionistische en andere aspecten van Mei, N.Tg. LII, 157ff.

A highly individual work, full of accurate observations, but weak in composition, is W. de Vries' Dysmelie; opmerkingen over syntaxis, dealing with deviations from the normal sentence pattern in colloquial language. The term ‘dysmelie’ was coined by de Vries, and may be translated as ‘mis-speech’. Not long before he had treated similar colloquial phenomena in an article Opmerkingen over Nederlandsche syntaxis, Ts. XXIX, 122 ff, where he called them ‘usurpations’. Another syntactic publication by W. de Vries is De typen der mededeeling, included in the programme of the Groningen grammar school for 1914-15. His Dysmelie appeared in the programme for 1910-11, so that both these important publications had, like his Woordvorming, a regrettably ephemeral existence, and never really found their way into the bookshops. De Vries' Opmerkingen over ontleding, N.Tg. XVI, 19 ff, is also of chiefly syntactic value.

Comparable with de Vries' Dysmelie, to a certain extent, is Miss B.J. Uijlings' doctoral thesis Syntactische verschijnselen bij onvoorbereid spreken, which appeared for sale under the title Praat op heterdaad (Assen, 1956); the material for this study was taken from taperecordings of fragments of spontaneous speech.

Joh. Heemstra, in his doctoral thesis Ueber den Gebrauch der attributiven Partizipialkonstruktionen in der niederländischen und hoch-

[p. 65]

deutschen Prosa (Haarlem, 1925), which we mentioned in Chapter IV, took part of his material from modern prose-writers. H. Annema, Die sogenannten absoluten Partizipialkonstruktionen im Neuhochdeutschen (Groningen, 1924), also pays attention to such constructions in Netherlandic.

A short article by J. van Alphen, N.Tg. VIII, 86 ff, deals with De vraagzin. The interrogative sentence and its intonation is also dealt with by C.F.P. Stutterheim, N.Tg. XLVI, 129 ff, with general reflections on the grammatical value of intonation. These and other questions were touched on by C.B. van Haeringen in his lecture Vragen over de Vraag (Utrecht, 1958).

One of the ‘usurpations’ discussed in W. de Vries' above-mentioned article Opmerkingen over Nederlandsche syntaxis, was the conversion of a ‘dative’ into the subject of a passive sentence (Ik word opengedaan). The same point was treated by J. Kooistra in Twee Hollands-Engelse parallellen in de syntaxis, N.Tg. XIII, 183 ff, and this elicited a reply from de Vries, ibid., 251 ff, to which Kooistra in his turn replied ibid., 304 ff. E. Wellander reverted to this matter in his article Over den datief als subject van een passieve constructie, N.Tg. XIV, 291 ff. Recently, G. Royen discussed these and similar Passieve wendingen in his above-mentioned Buigingsverschijnselen III, I, 110 ff, with copious quotations. Over ongemotiveerde inversie (the placing of the subject after the finite verb without preceding adjunct or other part of the sentence) is the title of an article by A.C. Bouman in N.Tg. XVI, 65 ff.

B. van den Berg, N.Tg. XLII, 120 ff and 205 ff, wrote on De zinsbouw in het Nederlands, in which he deals especially with the practice of separating parts of a sentence that logically belong together, called ‘tangconstructies’ by C.B. van Haeringen in N.Tg. XLI, 1 ff. This way of building up a sentence is considered typically Netherlandic by van den Berg. A new approach to sentence analysis was suggested by van den Berg in his article Sanering van de zinsontleding, N.Tg. L, 19 ff (comment by Th. Vindevogel, N.Tg. LI, 269 ff, reply by van den Berg, N.Tg. LII, 36 ff).

The small, useful book by J.L. Pauwels, Les difficultés de la construction de la phrase néerlandaise (5th edition, Liege, 1959), was inspired by practical experience in teaching Netherlandic to Walloon students.

The subtleties in the use of the particle er in Netherlandic have been

[p. 66]

admirably discussed by the Danish scholar Gunnar Bech, Ueber das niederländische Adverbialpronomen er (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, Vol. VIII, Copenhagen and Amsterdam, 1952).

W. Kramer's Inleiding tot de stilistische interpretatie van literaire kunst (³, Groningen-Djakarta, 1950), as the title implies, serves mainly aesthetic aims, but does not neglect ‘phonetische, morphologische en syntactische waarden’ (22 ff), ‘zinsritme en zinsbouw’ (36 ff). Of Kramer's Litterair-stilistische studiën (Groningen-Djakarta, 1950) may be mentioned Syntactische verschijnselen in het lyrische vers, a reprint of the article with the same title in N.Tg. XLI, 261 ff.

Grammar and stylistics are strictly delimited in their mutual relationship by W. Gs. Hellinga, who regards stylistics as the analysis of grammatical elements in so far as they are activated by, and applied to, what he calls the ‘taal-situatie’. Hellinga's principles and methods were briefly outlined in his inaugural address De Neerlandicus als taalkundige (Amsterdam, 1946); an expanded version, with examples of their application, is found in W. Gs. Hellinga and H. van der Merwe Scholtz, Kreatiewe Analise van taalgebruik (Amsterdam-Pretoria, 1955). Hellinga's article Taal en tekst in Museum LXIII (1958), 1 ff may also be looked upon as a sort of programme. The principles were applied in H. van der Merwe Scholtz' doctoral dissertation Sistematiese verslag van 'n stilistiese analise (Amsterdam-Cape Town-Pretoria, 1950), where the stylistic analysis and evaluation of one short poem (by the South African poet Eugène Marais) takes up a whole book. A similar operation was performed by Elisabeth Lindes in Veelheid en Binding (Amsterdam, 1955), also on a South African poem. Another work from Hellinga's school is the thesis by F. Lulofs, Verkenning door Varianten (The Hague, 1955), a stylistic examination of Martinus Nijhoff's poem Het uur U. The subject of C.J.M. Nienaber's book, originally a Pretoria thesis, Die Taal as Tolk (Pietermaritzburg-Durban, 1956), appears from the subtitle, 'n Stilistiese analise van Elisabeth Eybers se Maria.

Hellinga's linguistic approach to poetry, though highly interesting as a carefully thought-out system of putting literary criticism and evaluation on a rational basis, cannot really be considered completely convincing; its application involves the risk of over-interpretation. The ‘linguistic-stylistic’ method of evaluation has met with a fair amount

[p. 67]

of approval, but also with serious opposition, so far mostly from South African scholars.

A linguistic approach to stylistics in general, and to prosody in particular, is to be found in several articles by A.W. de Groot, such as Naar een nieuwe versleer, N.Tg. XXVI, 241 ff; Vers, voordracht, muziek, N.Tg. XXIX, 49 ff; De structuur van het vers, N.Tg. XXX, 197 ff; De Rhythmus, Neophil. XVII, 81 ff, 177 ff, 241 ff, and finally in a synthesis Algemene Versleer (The Hague, 1946). Another scholar who studies stylistics and prosody from a structural linguistic standpoint is C.F.P. Stutterheim, who wrote a useful compendium Stijlleer (The Hague, 1947). M. Rutten, in his article Dichtkunde en phonologie (Revue Belge de Philologie et d'Histoire XXVIII, 871 ff), discusses the views of de Groot and Stutterheim, and endeavours to give a specimen of ‘word-phonemic analysis of verse’, worth attention as a serious, though not in every detail convincing, attempt at a purely linguistic analysis of poetry.

f. Children's language.

Children's language can be looked upon as grammar in statu nascendi. Studies on this subject, covering all fields of grammar, therefore have their place here.

The very remarkable Roman van een kleuter by J. van Ginneken (Nimeguen, 1917), intended as a grammar for secondary schools, but certainly a failure as such, gives a lively, fascinating description of the growth of speech in the first years of life, based on accurate notes made by a mother. Fr. S. Rombouts elaborated the data of the Roman in his De psychologie der kleutertaal (Nimeguen, 1918).

C.G.N. de Vooys wrote Iets over woordvorming en woordbetekenis in kindertaal, N.Tg. XI, 209 ff and 273 ff (reprinted Verz. Taalk. Opst. II, 373 ff), using as a basis his own children's speech when they were a little older than ‘Keesje’ in van Ginneken's Roman. D.C. Tinbergen, in his article ‘Kinderpraat’, N.Tg. XIII, 1 ff and 65 ff, tells about a child of about the same age as ‘Keesje’, and compares the linguistic behaviour of his ‘test object’ with that of van Ginneken's.

W. Kaper's Kindersprachforschung mit Hilfe des Kindes (Groningen, 1959) first appeared as an Amsterdam doctoral thesis entitled Einige Erscheinungen der kindlichen Spracherwerbung erläutert im Lichte des vom Kinde gezeigten Interesses für Sprachliches, which

[p. 68]

was added as a subtitle to the public edition. The book is based on detailed observation of the author's own children; it is, bearing in mind the limitation implied by its subtitle, an interesting contribution to the study of children's language in general and to Netherlandic children's language in particular.